The Geometry of Composition

[cliveh]

I think this is a very complicated subject in terms of light and shade, form and tone and position within a given format. But is there a magic formula for this beyond the obvious golden section and rule of thirds?

 

[pdeeh]

I think it involves Boltzmann's constant and irrational numbers.

 

[markbarendt]

I used to consciously shoot toward the golden ratio, rule of thirds. I've floated back toward the center more now, but tend to keep a bit of imbalance.

Filling the frame is important.

 

[Ian Grant]

It's what you want to make of it. There is only one rule of composition and it's very easy, THERE ARE NO RULES, it's what you see.

Rather than rules it's far more important to realise you've seen what you want to shoot now how do you frame it, that can be instinctive or take time. Experience makes it instictive.

Ian

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... it's what you see.

Rather than rules it's far more important to realise you've seen what you want to shoot now how do you frame it, that can be instinctive or take time. Experience makes it instictive.

Well stated. That's exactly it. I may see a bridge I want to photograph - I instantly know that; it captured my attention. I may move around for different views or perspectives, but I'm not thinking in terms of rules - just what is intuitively visually appealing.

After all, the viewers of the photo are not aware of all these so-called rules: they like the image or not based on an innate visual appeal.

 

[timmct]

I consider myself as the capture plane...I know the lens and the film.

The subject matter has captured my imagination (within my ability to meld all of the variables into what I feel is my art) and I consider lines of convergence, trying those in many ways before tripping the shutter.

The aspect ratio IS real and I search a suitable composition (or just wider to allow manipulation from a crop).

Ideally, I take two exposures of the same image.

I develop the first one according to known standards. After assessment of the first negative, the second is treated to obtain an ideal for printing purposes.








0

 

[bvy]

Balance. It's all about balance.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

In case if it was posted in the street not by mistake.
HCB was saying many times about geometry. And staying mainly with 50 even on the street, because it allows not so much into the frame.
GW also studied art as HCB and in his 28mm geometry is often present. His most known rules are no crop and something must be vertical in the frame. But in his pictures it is more than just those two...

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I think it involves Boltzmann's constant and irrational numbers.

The golden ratio IS an irrational number.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

 

[MattKing]

All the so called composition rules aren't based upon deductions originating from mathematical principles, but rather they are induced based on multiple observations.

Essentially, the "rules" are the result of many, many observations of what appears "interesting", "balanced" and "pleasing". There are cultural and historical factors involved as well.

There are geometries in play - our visual field of view, the aspect ratios of the cameras we use, and the patterns that occur naturally in nature.

So the combination of repeated observations, history, culture and the geometries in play mean that there is some sense in this.

 

[Kirks518]

A few days ago I came across a petapixel blog about the geometry of Eisenstadt's compositions. While it's interesting, I have a difficult time fathoming the thought of AE thinking about all those lines/points/triangles/etc when taking a shot. Is it that by coincidence his wonderful images happened to have a certain geometric field, and that's one reason we enjoy/like his images? His Times Square image, to paraphrase, was just a lucky shot how it all worked together. He was going for the moment, so I doubt he put tremendous thought into the geometry.

Myself, I lean towards the rule of thirds, with some dead center stuff, but I always shoot tight (probably too tight), because when I started shooting, there was no post work for me. I was 12, and had to accept the image the way I got them back from the Fotomat.

 

[AlanC]

Rules are tremendously important. If you are photographing a duck, for example, follow the Golden Section and make sure it is exactly eight twentyfirsts in from one edge of the frame. And make sure it is looking into and not out of the picture. The duck should be on the left, so when you follow where it is looking your eyes go from left to right, just like when you are reading your daily paper. This rule should be ignored if you live in a part of the world where text is read from right to left. In this case place your duck on the right.
Never photograph two duck, or the viewer will be forced to look at one, then the other, then back to the first, etc. and eventually get confused. But three ducks are a good number to have in a photograph. Then you can place them in a line. It's always good to get your ducks in a line; preferably a diagonal one , because diagonals are, as everyone knows, dynamic.
I forget what the other rules are, but anyone who wants more information can ask any Camera Club judge. They will put you right.

Anyone who doubts the value of rules should look at the work of photographers who ignored the rules, like Cartier-Bresson, McCullin, James Ravilious, Minor White and Edward Weston, and observe how bad their photographs are...

Alan

 

[LAG]

Excuse me

I think this is a very complicated subject in terms of light and shade, form and tone and position within a given format. But is there a magic formula for this beyond the obvious golden section and rule of thirds?

Why do you need to open that magic door, knowing beforehand you're going to get into a four-wall-no-windows cursed room?

It's what you want to make of it. There is only one rule of composition and it's very easy, THERE ARE NO RULES, it's what you see.

Rather than rules it's far more important to realise you've seen what you want to shoot now how do you frame it, that can be instinctive or take time. Experience makes it instictive.

Ian

I disagree. One common mistake is to assume that reading and writing are the same, but they are not, they do need different skills and kwonledge and therefore both shouldn't be related with the same code. Another one, is making a rule for no rules, whether there are or not, one key unresolved issues (among others) in composition seems to be that we should feel free to create but also when we transfigurate, in writing or reading an image.

...Essentially, the "rules" are the result of many, many observations of what appears "interesting", "balanced" and "pleasing". There are cultural and historical factors involved as well.

There are geometries in play - our visual field of view, the aspect ratios of the cameras we use, and the patterns that occur naturally in nature...

And also what it is outside of the those dimensions ... and taking into acount the opposing concepts too.

 

[pdeeh]

The golden ratio IS an irrational number.
]

Hmm well perhaps I meant numbers with significant personality disorders then

 

[David Allen]

“To compose a subject well means no more than to see and present it in the strongest manner possible.” – Edward Weston

“Now to consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk. Such rules and laws are deduced from the accomplished fact; they are the products of reflection.” – Edward Weston

Says it all for me.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I think this is a very complicated subject in terms of light and shade, form and tone and position within a given format. But is there a magic formula for this beyond the obvious golden section and rule of thirds?

if you're looking for pure mathematics to generate a perfect composition,you're on the wrong track

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I think this is a very complicated subject in terms of light and shade, form and tone and position within a given format. But is there a magic formula for this beyond the obvious golden section and rule of thirds?

take a look at fibinaci

 

[Dali]

I think this is a very complicated subject in terms of light and shade, form and tone and position within a given format. But is there a magic formula for this beyond the obvious golden section and rule of thirds?

I don't know is there is a magic formula but I suggest you read (or re-read) Harald Mante. He wrote quite extensively about it (and other topics).

 

[MattKing]

take a look at fibinaci

Actually, Fibonacci (not my image):

 

[BrianShaw]

https://archive.org/details/panharmonicondes00webbrich

 

[cliveh]

I particularly liked the post about the ducks.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Look, see, feel, act. Rules often help... but often hinder.

 

[Jim Noel]

I think this is a very complicated subject in terms of light and shade, form and tone and position within a given format. But is there a magic formula for this beyond the obvious golden section and rule of thirds?

There is no magic formula. Edward Weston put it best in my opinion, "Composition is a way of seeing."

 

[baachitraka]

The rules are,
- Load the film right.
- Remove the lens cap.
.
.
.
- Dress properly.

 

[LAG]

I particularly liked the post about the ducks.

Me too!